User talk:Prismvg
Hi, welcome to the Dragon Age Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Possible Landsmeet Outcomes page. I hope that you will stick around and continue to help us improve the wiki. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Loleil (Talk) 20:11, 2010 February 28 Witch Hunt Hi there. I undid your earlier edit to Witch Hunt's bug section, but I ended up adding most of your edits back in anyway. In retrospect I should have left your edit in and simply tweaked it. Sorry about that. -Vim- (talk) 18:48, September 17, 2010 (UTC) No problem. Regarding the reason I put the two bugs in one paragraph, that's because the Witch Hunt v1.1 fix is intended to solve both of them, so it would have been a bit redundant to mention this twice. Prismvg (talk) 18:53, September 17, 2010 (UTC) Super Lame You find TWO WORDS (Super Lame) that hurt your feelings and you delete an entire post. Delete the two words. You've made your article worse and incomplete to spite yourself. Saying the previous paragraph is incorrect is a simple fact, not a user opinion :First, I didn't write any content on that article, so I'm sorry, but you didn't hurt any of my feelings. For that very reason I can be objective about what was written. Your addition contained a lot more than "two words" that were wrong. :And that last sentence cleary shows you do not fully grasp the concept of properly writing/editing a wikia article. It's not an insult or an irony, I'm just drawing attention to it. :So let me repeat: an article is impersonal, you do NOT make personal remarks and you certainly do NOT evaluate other parts of the article. You can do these on the article's Talk page or on a user's talk page. You start a discussion with other users, come to a conclusion, and make a proper post. :I was about to say that I appreciate you coming here to solve the matter instead of starting an edit war, but then I see you went ahead and edited the page anyway. :I'll at least take your suggestion and edit part of it, and leave it to others to confirm whether it is accurate or not. :If you don't agree with my changes, take it up with an admin. :I only ask you to stop edit warring until the matter is solved. Prismvg (talk) 22:17, April 3, 2011 (UTC) First, what was incorrect about the paragraph was that it stated you MUST. Clearly there was a second option. You have problems blurring fact with opinion. The game is a multiple choice environment. There was a choice ignored. This is not an opinion. Second, you still have the scenario wrong. The conversation I correctly described in my last post is an alternate conversation following sex with Isabela. She DOES NOT necessarily go into her past in the alternate conversation. You have again made this article even more incorrect. Worst, you have missed the point entirely, which is you can get the achievement and still romance another character with no penalty in the offered scenario. Third, as you clearly have not even tried playing through alt solution, then you should not have started your so called 'edit war.' So who are you to play arbiter of fantasy? --BFunc (talk) 21:58, April 3, 2011 (UTC) :First of all, try not to remove previous posts when editing a conversation on a talk page. :Second, I believe I didn't mention anything about the accuracy of the information you or any other user had posted. I simply commented on the way it was written, and acted upon it. Regarding the previous paragraph, as you have seen, I edited it to suite both scenarios, while not rejecting any of them. :Third, I did NOT modify the scenarios in any way. Yes, she does not always go into her past, nor did I say so. But she will always have the dismissing-of-feelings line. I simply moved that sentence to avoid repetition and because it is a bit more relevant to the first scenario. Your scenario is rather focused on the other line. Everything else (flirting with her, then initiating the romance scene) was already mentioned. The point was not missed, because it don't see anywhere mentioned you can't romance another character after this scene, regardless if you get the achievement or not. :Fourth.. well, as I said, I did not judge the validity of the information, just it's delivery. I don't how you got the impression I'm a member for just 6 weeks, but I guess it was an honest mistake. The first thing when I started editing was making sure what I wrote was consistent with the site's policy. That meant reading other articles to get a hold on how to express myself when editing, talking to other users regarding article content I felt was incorrect or incomplete, and, when everything else failed, seeking guidance from admins. So yes, after quite some time being an editor, I believe I can accurately judge whether an edit is properly written or not. Prismvg (talk) 22:17, April 3, 2011 (UTC) 1. Ya, OK, my bad on that one. But you changed the subject. There was a choice ignored. This is not an opinion, and is not attacking another post. 2. You attached the word opinion to a simple fact I pointed out- a choice was missing in a multiple choice situation. This was not a matter of opinion, but a fact, that was, and is still my point. I never said you mentioned accuracy, I told you the post got the scenario wrong. You are changing the subject. You then acted again after I had rewritten the post to comply with the site rules, thus beginning your 'war.' I even led the paragraph as an alternate scenario, when what I should have done was taken the MUST out out of the previous paragraph. 3. Yes, you are changing the scenario and missing the point. The paragraph originally states you MUST romance Isabela for such and such to happen. That can only be read ONE WAY! It then explains the chain of events that lead to Isabela's involvement throughout Acts 2 and 3. The article still suggests you should romance Isabela to ensure such and such happens. It is simply not the only option, and definitely not my preference. By ensuring Isabela's romance in the suggested manner, you cut off your ability to romance another character without rivalry consequences. i.e. I don't want Merrill mad I slept with Isabela, and I don't want to have to break off anything with Isabela later. This was not mentioned before, or after any of the edits other than mine. There have also been other interesting cut scenes where she has tried to make me jealous of other characters since, but I have yet to confirm that this does not happen any other way. If this is semantics regarding the actions of romance and sex, then that needs to be made clear as well. Because you can have sex with Isabela, thereby getting the achievement, without having to romance her ongoing. This is the OPPOSITE of what was originally posted, and different than your edit. If you don't see this, then it is truly best left to someone else. 4. I am sorry you had to point out the rules to a noob. But the first thing you should have done when you started editing was to make sure your info was right. This is true in every variation of editing- whether on a game blog, or in the London Times. Accuracy of info matters more than your preferred grammar. The point is to help people playing the game, not to make people regret coming here. Sorry to use the first person, but you can edit a post without murdering the content. And pointing out a missed option is not attacking someone else's post. 4a. Maybe you can judge whether or not a post is per your preferred methods, but that has not qualified you to write an accurate, coherent edit. If you had the time to edit the post, you should have replayed the scenario yourself and gotten the options correct before re-posting anything. In particular, you have re-posted this- Of note: you should question Isabela about love in order to get the achievement. In some circumstances, failing to do so keeps you in a quasi-romance where other characters will remark on your relationship, but you won't get the achievement or the outfit change... Maybe this was true pre-patch or something, but it is not currently correct. I have proved this false in replay several times. I have received the achievement, the new outfit, and a few remarks, but she has called it off and I get no rivalry points and keep all my companion friendships at full. The flirting in the Hanged Man before the flirting in the mansion has also been removed. I don't know if the relationship is dependent on these choices, but neither did whoever erased it. Again, accuracy first. --BFunc (talk) 00:40, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :OK, let's get something straight, regarding the first issue (regarding opinion/fact/whatever): my point is, if you consider a part of the content in an article (in this case, the "you must" section) to be inaccurate, you do not follow that by writing "that part of the article is false" within the article. As I said, you go to the talk page and point it out, or carefully correct that part yourself. :Now, the is a difference between "must" and "should". Isabela's romance is known to be a bit bugged, and going a certain way about it will improve your chances of getting it right - the "should" part. And, as you correctly pointed it out, it is not the only way, therefore "must" was wrong. Therefore, the article now states both options as being viable, but recommends one of them when unsure. :That part is not about how you get an achievement, it is about her romance progression. If you feel it is best to point out that you can get the achievement without fully romancing her (fact of matter is, this may not work for everyone), you can go ahead and do it. :The part with this not affecting further romances is worth pointing out, though it was not (properly) mentioned before, and I didn't delete it anyway. Again, the flirting in the Hanged Man and then at the Estate was removed because it is already mentioned ("You can initially only flirt with Isabela in Act 1 ... In Act 2, Isabela will approach you in your home. If you choose to engage in the romance scene, you can question her about love ... However, you can follow Isabela's lead after the tumble and agree about not having feelings..."). I think that phrasing suits both scenarios. :As for the last part, I wasn't pointing out rules, and certainly not to a noob. I appreciate anyone who contributes here, as long as they write useful info in an orderly fashion. I was just making a case for myself when my competence was questioned. Prismvg (talk) 06:56, April 4, 2011 (UTC)